Rocky

16 hours ago, WordWolf said:

Disagree.

I'm only speaking for myself here, but I think the real problems with understanding stem from 2 things. The smaller problem is expecting the Bible to be a textbook written for a modern audience. We, here and now, would prefer that, but it would have been impenetrable for centuries.  (Different styles benefit different people and work better for different times and different mindsets.)

The larger problem really is having preconceived notions about what it is SUPPOSED to say, and cherry-picking to try to support that rather than read the whole thing to find out what it actually says.  That's actual work, and requires one to double-check one's denomination. (Then again, I was already starting to do that while in twi before the splits happened, and I wasn't in terribly long.)   If you're taught, say, there's Heaven, Hell, Purgatory and Limbo, then if you even open your Bible, you're likely to just look for something that might look like it supports precisely that position, rather than making the effort to get the whole picture from the Bible.

A tertiary problem is awful translations- but a lot of those stem from a translator with the larger problem. I've found that reading an interlinear often corrects those pretty easily and painlessly.

Not necessarily an exhaustive list, but those are very real factors. Thanks WW.

2 hours ago, Charity said:

However, I did not see myself as invulnerable or all-knowledgeable.  Just the opposite - I hated myself and wanted desperately to know God's love.

That's not mutually exclusive with/from young people believing they know-it-all and/or take risks they shouldn't. 

On 12/1/2024 at 10:26 AM, waysider said:

The point is, the human mind craves easy solutions for complex problems. That explains why we fell so hard for VPW's shtick.

I fell into Victor's trap at age 19. That was 50 years and about 5 weeks ago.

Young people don't have as much of a data base between their ears from which to draw on to combat cult seduction, even if they've been taught critical analysis/thinking skills. It's no wonder young adults have often been those most vulnerable.

We think (at that age) we're both invulnerable, and all-knowledgeable. Sometimes it takes a lifetime of lessons in the School of Hard Knocks to begin questioning those easy solutions for complex problems.

A life well lived. Sad that she's gone. 

On 11/20/2024 at 7:17 AM, waysider said:

Mainly what I remember of the Jonestown Massacre, as it pertained to The Way International, is that we fervently tried to distance ourselves from any comparisons being made with the lifestyle they lived to the lifestyle we lived. There wasn't much discussion of doctrinal differences. Our concerns seemed to be mostly about public perception. I don't recall much discussion internally, amongst ourselves, questioning whether or not we were deluding ourselves.  From our perspective, they were a counterfeit and we were  "the real deal".

 

Did I dream all this stuff or did it really happen?

The 7th and 9th corpses were in residence when it happened. I remember Loy having a lot to say about it. Of course, Waysider, you're correct. The essence of the message at Emporia was mainly that WE were NOT a cult. As one of those 9th corpse people, we didn't have access to what was being said in the news. We were only fed what TWI, and mainly Loy Martindale thought about any of it.

 

40 minutes ago, modcat5 said:

No, that us NOT rationalization.

It's moderating a board where no politics is a rule. So when someone brings up politics, we need to decide how to respond. In the past, political posts have been deleted. No warning.

What happened here was, political posts went up. People replied. Others replied to the replies. Dome of the replies to replies to replies were political and some were not.

Some of these non-political replies make no sense unless you know the political post it was replying to.

Everyone misstepped on this one. Maybe I misstepped when I didn't delete the first mention of Butler.

The point Charity tried to illustrate was that it's ___ to say God spared someone in a certain situation when someone else in the same situation was not spared. Unfortunately she chose an example steeped in politics. And that opened the door to Oldiesman responding with an implication that God's favor is on a particular politician.

And THAT opens the door to a conversation about whether God intervened in Butler and, if he did, whether He did so because of politics.

That got shut down.

Discuss God's views on politics anywhere but here. We shut down politics YEARS ago.

The only question that remains is how much of the thread to retain and how much to delete because of politics.

I am so sowwy if i huwt yo feewings in trying to make a reasonable determination of what to keep instead of deleting everything that followed oldiesman's post as responses to politics. Which I would have been completely within the board's right to do.

Get over myself? Hold up a mirror when you say that.

YES, it was a rationalization. You didn't hurt my feelings. You can't make a "reasonable determination" about my posts/comments without actually knowing what said comments are.

2 hours ago, Nathan_Jr said:

This god as described can't be both more moral and amoral simultaneously. To borrow a phrase from that charlatan: it's a glove that doesn't fit.

Either this god is perfectly moral or all powerful. Can't be both.

At least from the mortal human perspective. 

15 hours ago, Charity said:

Just as an aside Rocky, how does this relate to the topic of this thread.

Deconversion will become massively more rampant as AI advances.

Just now, Rocky said:

Isn't that what's called rationalization?

Again, Yuval Noah Harari isn't a politician. Isn't a pundit. Isn't a journalist. He's an historian. His latest book is Nexus and it's about the history of INFORMATION NETWORKS. He HAS called attention to the urgency figuring out how to deal with the implication and ramifications of AI. Rightly so. 

That I mentioned the urgency for guardrails to be established for development of AI is a universal concern.

Get over yourself, Raf. Not everything that people actually SHOULD pay attention to is politics.

 

If you feel the need to "VET" something I post as political, freakin' ask me for clarification.

1 hour ago, Raf said:

I tried to limit mod action to posts that either WERE political or responded to posts that were political. There were some that responded to a response to a response... i tried to keep anything that lost all trace of politics.

IF a post had some politics but not all, the whole post went.

I didn't vet the video for political content. The title told me it probably wasn't, so i restored it on request. 

Not claiming to have exercised this responsibility perfectly. But if i were being strict i could have stopped the thread at the first mention of Butler, PA.

 

Isn't that what's called rationalization?

Again, Yuval Noah Harari isn't a politician. Isn't a pundit. Isn't a journalist. He's an historian. His latest book is Nexus and it's about the history of INFORMATION NETWORKS. He HAS called attention to the urgency figuring out how to deal with the implication and ramifications of AI. Rightly so. 

That I mentioned the urgency for guardrails to be established for development of AI is a universal concern.

Get over yourself, Raf. Not everything that people actually SHOULD pay attention to is politics.

1 hour ago, modcat5 said:

 

Harari does NOT get political. He's a historian. I was not asked for clarification about any potential political post I may have made.

It simply disappeared without comment.

While public policy decisions WILL need to be made regarding regulation of AI, and done soon, the only possible political implication was whether or not humanity would allow for AI to build further generations of AI that would/could reduce our capacity for self-determination.

8 hours ago, Charity said:

Why don't you question God's reasoning, oldiesman?  If a parent had the ability to save both children from a house fire, but decided to save only one, would you still accept this type of behavior?

Saying it is above your reasoning or logic clearly denigrates, nullifies, infantilizes and oppresses you as a person and your ability to think logically and critically. 

It is groupthink, oldiesman, from living inside an echo chamber.  What keeps you holding on?  Is it the promise of eternal life?

Why don't you question God's reasoning... ANYONE? Because we accept/trust the canon?

WHY should we accept the canon? Who says so?

Deconvert this: Forgery and Memory at the End of the First Millenium.

Why do I say this? Because I distrust the framing of reasons/reasoning of claims as "God declared" this or that as truth.

I now point you to Noah Yuval Harari's latest book, Nexus: A Brief History of Information Networks from the Stone Age to AI

Harari's thesis goes directly to whether or not the canon of the bible is trustworthy.

This YT discussion (featuring Harari) might be too long for you to view the entire clip. However, Information systems, including AI, are things that humanity needs to decide ethical and moral guardrails for VERY soon/quickly.

Whether or not you will continue to believe the canon of the old or new testaments of the bible are trustworthy is a key question for each of us. I can't answer it for anyone but me.

On 11/10/2024 at 8:49 PM, Charity said:

just about what your beliefs are about who God allows to live and who he allows to die. 

Who says it is God who determines who gets to live and who "is allowed to die?"

Modnote: Although this responds to a post that got political, we're letting it stand because it digresses enough from the political content and gets back into the subject of the thread.

3 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

7th, "if it's the truth, what does it matter if he plagiarized?"

 

Except so much of what he plagiarized isn't true or accurate. And I don't mean doctrinal positions -- that's a matter of belief, opinion, preference. Also, to plagiarize is to lie. The liar can't convey the truth - simple math.

It's not the truth because victor says so. If one must dishonestly twist the text to say and mean what it plainly does not, it's not the truth. Test all things.

We've advanced a long, long way in our understanding of Koine Greek since Bullinger and his Victorian sensibilities. Bullinger is outdated. There are better, more accurate lexicons available today. Not to mention easily reproved, corrected and refuted imaginations like the four-crucified stupidity.

From Goodreads, a blurb about Levi Roach's book

An in-depth exploration of documentary forgery at the turn of the first millennium

Forgery and Memory at the End of the First Millennium takes a fresh look at documentary forgery and historical memory in the Middle Ages. In the tenth and eleventh centuries, religious houses across Europe began falsifying texts to improve local documentary records on an unprecedented scale. As Levi Roach illustrates, the resulting wave of forgery signaled major shifts in society and political culture, shifts which would lay the foundations for the European ancien régime.

Spanning documentary traditions across France, England, Germany and northern Italy, Roach examines five sets of falsified texts to demonstrate how forged records produced in this period gave voice to new collective identities within and beyond the Church. Above all, he indicates how this fad for falsification points to new attitudes toward past and present―a developing fascination with the signs of antiquity. These conclusions revise traditional master narratives about the development of antiquarianism in the modern era, showing that medieval forgers were every bit as sophisticated as their Renaissance successors. Medieval forgers were simply interested in different subjects―the history of the Church and their local realms, rather than the literary world of classical antiquity.

A comparative history of falsified records at a crucial turning point in the Middle Ages, Forgery and Memory at the End of the First Millennium offers valuable insights into how institutions and individuals rewrote and reimagined the past.

Stormy today/tonight on Terceira. 

2 hours ago, Galen said:

Did anyone attend the Rock of 2024?

 

I just saw an ad selling tickets for 2025. 

Not me. 

Hassan is a former Moonie. This 10 minute video is specifically about a process, mind control. He starts by citing Robert Lifton's 60+ year old book, on Thought Reform, a study of brainwashing in China (years ago). I purchased Lifton's book (in Kindle form) today for a dollar.

7 hours ago, Raf said:

We expected tropical storm conditions in my neck of the woods and didn't even get that. Some strong overnight winds, but that's it.

Most of the GSers who would have been affected don't post much here anymore.

Heard from a few on FB. Of those, they're all fine. I did learn that an old friend in western NC, who was dealing with some aftermath of Helene was killed when he was trying to protect his home from downed tree damage. Gut wrenching sadness there. 

11 hours ago, GeorgeStGeorge said:

This one will continually update:

At least it appears that only Florida will be hit.

George

Bermuda?

https://weather.com/storms/hurricane/video/milton-hurricane-gulf-florida-surge-threat

8 hours ago, Raf said:

I think there are two ways people tend to say "I'll pray for you." One is condescending and pretentious, and the other is sincere. To a believing Christian, "I'll pray for you" is one of the kindest things you can say. She could have said "My heart breaks for the path you are on and I hope you see your way back into His love and life." She means that. Deconversion breaks hearts. I can totally understand where she is coming from. Heathen to heathen, let it go. She did not mean it the way some others do.

We all know the others. The people who heard from God this morning and He told them to turn left at the light because the perfect parking spot was waiting. When they say they'll pray for me, I say "I'll talk to my cat for you. Expect the same results."

And if you've seen that meme before, I made it up. I get the credit for it.

7 hours ago, Charity said:

Why did you change my "could" to "should" – big difference.  Could is a possible option; should is saying what one ought to do and can be judgmental as you mentioned.

Weren't you suggesting she SHOULD have done it differently? Of course, curiosity to get her reasoning is a very good thing. 

45 minutes ago, Charity said:

Could Should she have shown her love in a way that respected who I now am like suggesting we get together to have a fun night of friendship together?

How is it YOUR place to determine what she should have done? It may have been nicer from your perspective for her to have done differently, but expecting someone else to do as you prefer? It seems like an emotional boundary problem. That's the BIG problem with twi. They far too often judged what other SHOULD have done, or should do. And when the person doesn't, do they hold a grudge? Sometimes.

Again, the woman didn't invade your emotional boundaries by expressing her love for you the way she did. Did she?

I hope you can let it go very quickly.  

Even without God, humans still need community... (and belonging).

1 hour ago, Charity said:

My Christian woman friend sent me a reply after my last messages to her saying that she is still continuing to pray for me and my grandson.  I know this implies that I'm lost and we both need God's help, but I'm letting that particular conversation with her go at this point

Well, I see the implication of that response to you completely differently. Instead of what it implies about YOU, I'm recognizing what it implies about her. Namely, that SHE VIEWS you with love and that's what she does to express that love for you.

I still believe in prayer. But I don't view it as exclusive to Christians. I'm thankful that regardless of her beliefs, she expresses love for you and your grandson. What happens after that isn't up to either you or her.